Chemistry and Physics aside, I've owned a Kirmuss Unit for almost a year. I bought mine at Axpona 2023 in Chicago. I've run close to 200 records through the machine and what I hear after cleaning, tells me that the cleaning process works. I've never been in a Pressing Plant, but after cleaning 20 or so new (Read; sealed/unopened) records, the material left in the water shows that something was removed from the surface. Older recordings definetly benefit from this machine. A pressing of Fat Matress' first release was horrible sounding when I brought it home from Goodwill and after a thorough cleaning it sounded like a different record. It's not cheap, it takes time to do the process properly and it is noisy, but it works very well. Great review and some great discussion in the comments section. One more thought: I leave the top unit on the machine, unplugged while I Degas the bath. and cover the slots with a towel to keep the noise down. My cat appreciates it....
great demo...yes the process does look time consuming as you mentioned, however that record did look perfect and brand new after the cleaning session. just looked immaculate from here. for certain lps in a collection the process is probably well worth the time
Restoration is not surface shining. And once done, the process does not have to be repeated. A shiny record is not indicative of a great sounding record. In many cases we restore records, some sold as new, only to see surface marks and scuffs on the record after record restoration as they were cleaned and shined for sale"... in essence, coated. As the needle now rides "in the pocket", we do not pick up in most cases any noises. To just surface clean like other processes, a 2 or 3 single cycle suffices. Once restored one does not have to repeat the process with the 4 ir so in and out cycles. A 2 or 3 minute cycle when the owner of the record decides the record has accumulated more fingerprints etc..
The main purpose of the "surfactant" used is to change the charge of the record to attract the cavitation as you alluded to. It does also help with static of course. The "surfactant" (or as I like to call it "atomic charge changer" as well) has both a positive and negative charge itself. The properties are temperature sensitive as well. It is best used in ultrasonic cleaning and the like over other surfactants that have both a hydrophobic and hydrophilic charge or indeed only a hydrophobic charge as found in items such as dishwashing liquid. Ethylene Glycol is a water absorber basically, it doesn't leave behind a "forever" residue. Dish soap on the other hand is opposite. It's surfactant(s) are designed to leave behind a residue that repels items making your dishes easier to clean next time. As for "mold release agent": I have also recently heard Dr. Kirmuss (I will reveal here that I know him well) state that there is plasticizer that is also removed and needing removal in the process. Most folks, including most audiophiles have a vision of products such as Pam being sprayed on the stampers, but that is myth. There is a release agent mixed into the pellet mixture along with plasticizers, etc. which is melted down to create the pucks for stamping. (Otherwise the record would stick to the mold until completely cooled or do so regardless of temperature. Pressing machines need to be able to press records quickly, so there is not time to let the record cool to the point where it releases on it's own, if that happens). Some of this "release agent AND plasticizer ends up coming to the surface of the record (which includes in the grooves). In and of itself, it is not a problem, but as we know, record pressing plants are not laboratory clean rooms like electronic chip manufactures. They are some of the dirtiest places around so what happens is the pressed record (still quite warm/hot) is set on a spindle device with non-stick paper between each record to air cool and all the contaminates around land on the record and in the grooves. The "release agent" and plasticizer that has come to the surface in the pressing process is like a cooking oil or some sticky oil and suspends the contaminates that have fallen in/on it. Think of new records that you get and put on the turntable straight away, you will hear all kinds of pops and clicks, etc. Even if one surface cleans the record beforehand and then plays it, will still hear pops and clicks and noise. Not as much as before perhaps, but still very much audible. That is from the contaminates embedded in the "release agent" and plasticizer that is still sitting on the surface. This can not be removed by any other type of cleaning other than ultrasonic and keep the record intact. One could use excellent enzyme based cleaner such as Audio Intelligence Vinyl Solutions and a vacuum RCM, but it would take a hundred cleanings and a lucky day to get it. If you took your thumb nail and pressed it into the record, say on the outside edge or lead in, you would see an imprint! (I have done this in my studies). The imprint is from and in the plasticizer and "release agent" which is soft. I like to also point out that plasticizer is one of the most important components of the mix, Were it not for that records would be pieces of plumbing and unable to hold grooves where the music data lives. They would also be very brittle. So we do NOT want to remove or leach out all the plasticizer, but we do want to get a thin micron layer that contains the contaminates off the surface without removing or leaching any more out. Some ultrasonic RCMS can remove too much plasticizer rendering your record into a piece of plumbing, which not only raises the noise floor, but one day the record can fall apart in your hand! Standard records are about 120 gram weight and dynaflex and the like is about 80 grams! This is far thinner than PVC plumbing. So with certain frequencies and temperature combinations one can leach most of if not all the plasticizer in a record with relative ease. The good thing about the Kirmuss machine in part is the frequency of the transducers and the temperature control. I have heard many an audiophile say that the frequency of the transducers used in the Kirmuss machine make the bubbles too big to get into the grooves and be affective and that higher frequency transducers are needed so the bubbles are smaller to get into the grooves. That is not the case. When one understands how cavitation works, one sees the picture clearer. Bubble size corresponds with time. The smaller the bubble, the less time in the bath, but the "cleaning" function remains the same. The frequency of the transducers is low enough on the Kirmuss machine that it would take a record constantly running through the machine about 6 months to leach out enough of the plasticizer thus destroying the record. These machines that tout 100kHz or 120kHz transducers and temperatures above 93/94F running into 110F to 120F will not only warp the grooves in short order, but leach out most of, if not all the plasticizer as well in relatively short order! (The record is already ruined with the warped grooves).
The demonstration is very thorough and detailed which is great. What I didn’t hear you say however is how effective the Kirmuss methodology is in terms of the record restoration? Specifically, did the process banish surface noise completely, improve sound etc., and in this respect did it do a better job than the KL Audio? I own a KL Audio unit and my interest in the Kirmuss has been piqued. Michael Fremer in an article he wrote for Analog Planet some time ago was glowing in his praise of the Kirmuss process as a restoration procedure. You did not comment on the efficacy of the ‘ritual’ in terms of restoring a vinyl record. I would like to hear your observations on that. I enjoyed the video nonetheless as an invaluable instruction on how to use the Kirmuss unit.
Look at this: 1. Restoration of a Frank Sinatra Record. Mexico City Nov 2023 KirmussAudio event. Before restoration: Lots of noise. Crackles abound. Sound Muddled. The record was processed before in a 120 KHz ultrasonic. Processed 5 times. Before in a vacuum based cleaning system, so I was told.
Video Before Kirmuss Processing: th-cam.com/channels/q6s2TT2s7SgZu_7F1D37SQ.html Video After Kirmuss Restoration: Increase in signal and frequency response, pops gone. th-cam.com/video/_RZ50MIPtVA/w-d-xo.html
2. From our record restoration event in Mexico City in front of Billboard Magazine and with an invitation only meeting of Discos two weeks ago held at the Margules factory, very nice of him, a record that was brought in that was processed prior with a vacuum cleaning system saw these results:
Before Kirmuss; th-cam.com/users/shorts-L2gIqQ3nok
This looks like a great method for creating "needle-drop" transfers of records for which the master tapes are missing. I can picture someone finding some private-press garage rock 45 and giving it this treatment before ripping it for a compilation. That surfactant really seems to be the key. You get a pretty good idea if the record needs another spin based on whether or not the white film is appearing.
For those interested in hearing the results of the Kirmuss restoration process: 1. Restoration of a Frank Sinatra Record. Mexico City Nov 2023 KirmussAudio event. Before restoration: Lots of noise. Crackles abound. Sound Muddled. The record was processed before in a 120 KHz ultrasonic. Processed 5 times. Before in a vacuum based cleaning system, so I was told.
Video Before Kirmuss Processing: th-cam.com/channels/q6s2TT2s7SgZu_7F1D37SQ.html Video After Kirmuss Restoration: Increase in signal and frequency response, pops gone. th-cam.com/video/_RZ50MIPtVA/w-d-xo.html
2. From our record restoration event in Mexico City in front of Billboard Magazine and with an invitation only meeting of Discos two weeks ago held at the Margules factory, very nice of him, a record that was brought in that was processed prior with a vacuum cleaning system saw these results:
Before Kirmuss; th-cam.com/users/shorts-L2gIqQ3nok
Very effective demonstration videos, Charles. I wish everyone would do this type of A/B comparison, to have a visual eq, along with (what sounds like) the audio going straight into the video upload, as opposed to most comparison videos where a mic is trying to pick up sound from a stereo speaker. Assuming the statement of this being done in front of an audience is true, this is the best A/B I've seen on TH-cam, and I can easily hear & see the difference.
@jeffjeezy7170 thanks for the comment. Yes, at every show or event we ask folks to bring in a record from home or buy one at the record fair area at the shows we attend. New or vintage records are listened to both before and after processing. Since the Seattle show last year we use a spectrum analyzer. In the videos posted, we recorded with the Samsung Fold S3 camera the spectrum analyzer and where we used a set of Grado headphones next to the analyzer. Volume control.of the headphone amp kept the same. No changes. The results speak for themselves. All done live, unscripted.
@astahesta123 Great question, thanks! Just checked our TH-cam channel. Seems due to copyright issues, the one we posted with high quality recorded first on tape then converted to digital as a audio video mix with the spectrum analyzer seems to have been removed by TH-cam on our site, so it would seem. Perhaps a video with in person commentary would pass. You can stop by a dealer or see us at a show to have your personal record restored with before and after restoration audition. Confident in our results, we are the only folks to do this live at the audio shows, last one being Axpona. While there is background noise of folks taling in the clips remaining on our site, the results of increase in signal and frequency response represented on the spectrum analyzer after record groove restoration are accurate. A testament to the effectiveness of the process. To your request, when we are back from travels as we have another 6 events over 9 weeks, we will try to create a clip that would not infringe and hope the clips stay up. Keep those records spinning!
Some clarifications: 1)To restore a record with the Kirmuss, not just surface shine which other systems do by leaving a film, we need to use several cycles. The spray changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water in the tank. Restoration removes films from prior cleaning methods left by air, vacuum or spin drying. We then remove the film of the outgassing of the record while in its record's sleeve. Finally, the release agent which allowed the record to pop out of the stamper, where when cooling, sees dirt and dust around the cooling record be fused into the pressing oil, cause of those unwanted and nasty pops. 2) Cavitation creates heat. Evey 5 or so records, one needs to remove the cover assembly, disconnect it, and use one pulse/degas cycle of 1:36 to remove air that gets introduced into the water. This slows down the heating. 3) Correcting the statement made as to stop the machine every 35 minutes to allow the transducers and water to cool down (do this when the small red light flashes), you can empty the tank of the hot water, returning the water to the plastic gallon jugs used, and then pour in fresh cool distilled water, add the 2 shots of 70% IPA (used to kill fungus), do the prescribed two de-gas/pulse cycles of 1:36, and you are set to go. Leave the caps off of the gallon jugs of hot water to allow the water to cool down. We do 40 plus records at a trade show in 8 hours. 4) Restoration offers 1.3 to 9 dB or more signal improvement over floor, with 8 to upwards of 28, sometimes seen 32, even 38% increase in frequency response. Many cleaning systems leave severe coatings on the record, which we remove. 5) A quick surface clean is a 2 minute cycle. Records will not come out dry as only the Kirmuss restoration system and the described process restores records. Per the Tribelectric table of charges, PVC and water have the same charge, that is proof of a record being restored. 6) Average time to restore records: New records (or records seen with huge sheets of water after the first 5 minute cycle in the machine with ionizing spray applied, sees the use of four 2 minute cycles, followed by a 5 minute cycle. Most records see three 5 minute cycles. Determined by the rapid dissipation of the colorant when the ionizing agent is brushed into the record. Also whereas restored records come out virtually dry. 7) If one wants to play what the stamper actually pressed, only restoration and not record cleaning will allow your analog system set up n ow allow the needle pick up all the detail. That is why we guarantee with measurements what restoration does. Once restored, one does not have to process the record as demonstrated. Just a 2 minute cycle to remove any fingerprint oils etc. as determined by the user. 8) The Upscale Audio Version can process three LP's at a time, plus a 45.
Good one, that record was pretty clean after 5 min. You could tell the water came right off it. Dirty disks the water pools and doesn’t come off quickly. It’s a good system. It will reveal how crappy most modern disks are. Mid 80s pressings are much better. Yes can run multiples at same time. Stagger by about 2 min. Note: klaudio is about 6 times the cost of the kirmuss. If you want a real clean…. Get the kirmuss. He says you can get 1-2db back. I have the upscale audio version too
1. Restoration of a Frank Sinatra Record. Mexico City Nov 2023 KirmussAudio event. Before restoration: Lots of noise. Crackles abound. Sound Muddled. The record was processed before in a 120 KHz ultrasonic. Processed 5 times. Before in a vacuum based cleaning system, so I was told.
Video Before Kirmuss Processing: th-cam.com/channels/q6s2TT2s7SgZu_7F1D37SQ.html Video After Kirmuss Restoration: Increase in signal and frequency response, pops gone. th-cam.com/video/_RZ50MIPtVA/w-d-xo.html
2. From our record restoration event in Mexico City in front of Billboard Magazine and with an invitation only meeting of Discos two weeks ago held at the Margules factory, very nice of him, a record that was brought in that was processed prior with a vacuum cleaning system saw these results:
Before Kirmuss; th-cam.com/users/shorts-L2gIqQ3nok
The speakers are Quintet 15s from Pure Audio Project. They're dipoles (no enclosure), which makes them easy to drive. The low/mid frequency woofers are driven by 2A3 amps at 3.5 watts and center mid/hi speaker (from Voxativ) is driven by a 7 watt 300b based amp. Just love 'em. What's in the safe is pretty much what's in every guy's safe...thanks for watching!
I also have the Kirmuss record restorer and I find that some vinyl records come out dry while some after ten cycles still show water beads so I think it depends on the vinyl type, not all vinyl is the same. I also learned not to allow the surfactant on the dead wax, it isn't submerged in the water and sounds static when the stylus passes through it afterwards.
Thanks for the video. Question. How realistic is it, to clean multiple records at once? To go through the process I just watched you do, but with multiple records as to fill all slots in the machine, it seems like the cleaning agent could begin drying onto your first record by the time you're still swirling both sides of say the third record. I imagine you would want to get the cavitation going immediately after putting that solution on. Curious of your thoughts on that.
I did try it and with some practice, one can clean multiple records at once. The key is to space them a few minutes apart so as you're finishing applying surfactant on one record, another is coming to the end of its US cycle.
@LetsCleanaRecord I see. I should have phrased that better, but to put three records in the available slots at one time, then start the US process on all three at once, is likely a bit much to handle, if you're trying to restore. Great video, I was waiting on this one.
At the various live events and trade shows we in 9 hours and only processing 2 LP's at the same time sees us process 42, 48, 60 records depending whether we process new records at a fixed 18 minutes, or records using 3,4 or 5 five minute cycles. The appearance and dissipation of the colorant in the ionizing spray allows one to determine visually when we have removed everything from the record... films left over by air, spin or vacuum drying, the outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in its sleeve (like the film on your new car's windshield with that new car smell), then the release agent itself.
I’d be interested in you testing for any sonic improvement of a record previously cleaned by the Klaudio machine that was still a bit noisy that later went through the Kirmuss process.
Great video... odd where where peers do not publish signal gain over floor or increase in frequency response after one uses a cleaning system or process. Hmmm.
If you had to pick, kirmuss or loricraft? I have a kirmuss and absolutely love the results. It the time it takes that is hard to swallow. Based on results, which would you recommend
I've owned one of these for about three years. It's an amazing cleaner and it is one of the best cleaners that I've ever owned. It's pricey, but it really works well. It's far better than products like the Spin Clean. Using my KVARC cleaner, my records sound very much better.
wondering if one uses the same processes, surfacants and brushes from Kirmuss on a HumminGuru, that the results could be the same? seems the process is more important than the machine itself.
The Huminguru is not a cavitation machine. It is a sonic bubbler. Would not remove the film caused by outgassing of the record while in a sleeve or the pressing oil.
I'm a little confused about a specific part of the cleaning process. Surfactant/goat hair brush/milky white film. What I mean is I have watched some of your other videos regarding products and machines used to clean vinyl and this step is not addressed. What I am curious about, as an example, after using the 3 Mofi cleaning products that you used, what would happen if you then used the Kurmas solution? Would a milky white film appear? Does my question make sense?
It would. Standard cleaning processes most certainly help but will leave a residue behind. The whitish film is a colorant in the ionizing spray that allows you to determine if the cleaning process is complete or not. A fast rise and dissipation of the colorant indicates that there is nothing else for the ultrasonic to remove.
Great question! Thanks! Te spray is not a cleaning solution. It changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water to attract the effects of ultrasonic cavitation. Yes, the colorant as explained allows one to see what the ultrasonic pulled out. Rapid dissipation of the coolant indicates last cycle in the machine, as little is left for the ultrasonic to remove.
If i clean my records i do it once not 4 times if i had to do this with every record i would be pissed after that . maybe the white residue is from the brush not actually on the record that is my thinking about that.
Testing that theory as we speak! So far, I find the Kirmuss process to do the best job, but one has to do it correctly (varies depending on the type and age of the dirt) and it is certainly time consuming. A fabulous machine and process the Kirmuss is. That said, I've had guys tell me they pull off dirt with a Loricraft after a US treatment, though I don't think it was the Kirmuss. More soon and thanks for watching.
My big question is, is it worth it? It’s a lot of time and effort. I’m currently using an audio desk , I think it does a really good job but everything, although I am not sure it’s the last word in ultrasonic. Some people have mentioned that it’s not actually using ultrasonic technology but using bubbles, that seems ridiculous, but everyone has theories about everything around here. Have you had any experience with audio desk?
@@CésarRubio-w1n I have not used the AD but several guys here have. I do think the Kirmuss process is worth the time for my favorite records where one can hear the difference (well recorded, nicely pressed, music with quiet passages, etc.)
Good review but I have to admit I have minimal patience with this method and with Dr. Kirmuss himself. Many of us have seen Professor Kirmus. His long and rather excruciating diatribes are some of the best antidotes for sleeplessness. In fact, it has been reported that the makers of Ambien are extremely worried and considering a law suit for infringing on their territory...
Why do my peers not publicize what they use as to chemicals and measure and publish the results after processing a record? With no commentary on our TH-cam channel you can see how our process restores records processed prior using a vacuum system and a peer ultrasonic. May I suggest you bring a record from home to either one of our resellers or to us at one of the many shows that we attend. This for an A -B pre and post processing test with signal analyzer and your ears in tow. There has been no sharing of science as to the art of record cleaning. The presentations and publications seen globally cannot be refuted, just as the extensive studies by JR Boisclair of Wally Tools. Everyone is entitled to their opinions which I personally welcome. The fact of the matter remains whether you are a fan of my person or not is where we put in writing the gain in signal and frequency response from our record groove restoration process. The only manufacturer to do so.
@@kirmussaudio7578 The trouble with your method and the reluctance to adopt it is the tediousness of your procedure. I know you will reply that you can do so many records in a very short time. But judging by the comments on various websites, most users do not find this to be true. Many report that the restoration process just takes too long and is too complicated. I don’t question the fact that your restorative method works. It may offer the very best cleaning compared to any other method but what good is it if users are reluctant to adopt it? And, unequivocally this has been the case with a majority of users who express their opinions on websites. Ask a number of people which they would prefer- your method which involves scrubbing and washing or something like the Degritter where you put the record in the machine, come back in a few minutes and it’s done. Even the vacuum machines are faster. Like many others, I love the vinyl medium and would prefer to play clean, mostly noiseless records. The Degritter gets me there with a minimum of fuss and time. I understand your attempt and frustration to explain scientifically why your method is the best, most exhaustive cleaning method. But how many of us want or are interested in that much detail? Life is short. I’d rather be reading a book, watching a movie or playing music than scrubbing records.
I have some records that have calcium carbonate in the grooves that does not come off with deep cleaning and ultrasonic cleaning have you heard of using white vinegar mixed with distilled water soak and scrub that might help remove?thanks
Calcium carbonate is not soluble in water, any water based cleaning system will have no affect on it. It must be dissolved in an acid. To make matters worse, once the water evaporates from the acid solution, the calcium carbonate will re-precipitate. For this reason you must use an acid that is stable in water, and not attack PVC. Be very careful with what you read on the forums, advice is often freely given by people with absolutely zero understanding of chemistry who "have been doing it for years, and never had a problem with it." You can search for PVC compatibility chart, and vinyl compatibility chart to find lists of compatibility ratings for chemicals. Advice often runs towards people liking organic acids like acetic acid or lactic acid, all of which will attack vinyl. I suggest a 5% solution of hydrochloric acid. This is a bit less acidic than stomach acid, so you can handle it safely enough. It won't burn your skin (will redden it like a mild sunburn), but you *will* feel it in your eyes. It will also be strong enough to bleach the label if you don't get it off fast enough. Muriatic acid is dilute hydrochloric acid (31%) with some metal chelating agent like iron. The Hydrochloric acid we buy is 37%, and the air smoke when you open the bottle, and the labels turn brown from the vapor that leaks past the cap. To calculate your dilution, use the dilution formula: C1*V1 = C2*V2. So, you have 37% acid (C1), and you want 100ml (V2) of 5%(C2), you solve for V1 in V1*37 = 5*100 -> V1 = 5*100/37 = 13.5. you add 13.5ml to 85.5ml water, or adding 16oz of 37% to 2gal of water will yield a 4% solution. should be fine. I suggest getting the 37% stuff so you don't have to worry about iron cations sticking to your record. You can use Pyrex measuring cups from your kitchen, and put them back with no worries. Once you rinse out the cup, it will be cleaner than when it came out of the factory. Neutralize it with common baking soda.
So…you spray this stuff on the record, spread it around until this gunk comes up…and then turn the record over and use the same brush that you used on the first side? You’re just spreading that crap around, and it probably came from the stuff you sprayed on the record in the first place.
Thanks for your comment. The idea is that the spray renders a consistent static charge across the record's surface, one that is opposite of the charge within the US tank. This aides the cavitation process. The gunk is a result of the interaction between the spray and vinyl. It's not stuff coming off the record, though it is an excellent visual cue as to whether or not you still have a film on the vinyl, which is common with records that have been previously cleaned. Stated differently, we're not spreading crap around with this step, we're addressing the static charge.
The gunk seen is the colorant in the ionizing agent used that allows one to see what the ultrasonic brought up in the prior cycle. One should pad the goat hair brush between sides so as to see better what the ultrasonic removed. The TH-cam videos on the KirmussAudio channel go through the steps.
Very well done, was thinking about a Degritter, but this is less $ and may be a better option as I don't mind cleaning records. As far as the "mold release agents", I get records that have a visible white film on them, even RTI presses, I couldn't remove it until I started using Tergikleen and then Alcohol in distilled water, that removes whatever it is. So my two cents is - something is causing this, and release agents are most logical.
Less money, yes. But how many of your records need this sort of treatment. Unless you love cleaning records, do you really want to spend the time it takes when you could be doing something else… anything else? The vast majority of records do not need this treatment. Take my advice- buy the Degritter. Yes, it’s more expensive but it’s so much easier to use, requires so little time, and does an excellent job. Put the record in, press the button for the time you want, come back a few minutes later and it’s all done. Read the great reviews for the Degritter. Most of the reviews I’ve read of the Kirmuss say it does a good job but is very laborious. And, by the way, the Degritter uses much less water.
Although the Kirmuss gets good review from those who have the patience to use it, here’s a typical review comparing the Kirmuss with the Degritter from the Hoffman website: DaleClark said: ↑ I’m sorry, the Kirmuss looks like a pain in the A&$. Heck, I don’t even like using my Pro-Ject RCM. Degritter for me once I have $$ freed up It is a colossal pain in the a$$. It’s not just the cleaning process. It’s the set up. The clean up. I can keep the Degritter upstairs and it’s unobtrusive. I go to play a record, drop it in the Degritter for 4-9 minutes depending on the cycle I choose, remove, and play. Simple. And records sound amazing right after they are cleaned. The Kirmuss is huge, uses 2x the water, and you need a fresh batch with every cleaning. The Degritter is easy to change water, and you do it once a week (and can go longer).
@@ericlubow4354 Good points all! You are right about the fact most of my records really don't need that level as I buy mostly new (remastered, UHQR, One step etc). And I'm pretty particular on used ones. My current RCM works well, but always looking for a better solution. Thanks for the input!
You again! Do not trust the troll sites out there. We guarantee in writing the 1.3 dB and 8% frequency response gain in nbew records, and where in records of vintage unknown 3 to 4 dB gain over floor and 28-38% increase in frequency response. You hear and also can see the difference if you have a spectrum analyzer. Video of two record restorations of records are on the Kirmuss TH-cam Channel recorded in front of the record owners and a live audience. @@ericlubow4354
All records have first any films left over from prior cleaning processes, air, vacuum or spun dried, then the film left by the outgassing of the record in its record sleeve either a day old or 70 years old caught in the record sleeve, then the record pressing oil, release agent. New records especially have different mixes. In front of Michael Fremer and Daniel Jacques (of Focal/Plurison fame), we showed on two new records made in the last year, depending on the presser, at one extreme 6 dB gain and 28% increase in frequency range, the other, proud to say an Anne Bisson record pressed by RTI, her latest one, 1.4 dB gain over floor, and increase of 8% frequency range. @@pnichols6500
Oh my days i use a baby hair brush and fine tooth brush with dish washing liquid ..save u dollars i get excellent reesults with no bs and the record sounds absolutley quiet .so longs as u get deep in the groove u good to go ...cheap as chips dont believe the hype.
I hope you are kidding. In case you are not: The use of dish soap alone is harming your records sonically. It won't destroy them outright, but you won't get any lasting pleasant sound from them. It may sound good to you for a short while but because you are masking everything with the dish soap, eventually that noise floor will come back up and the pops and clicks and such will return, likely worse than before. The reason is that as the stylus rides in the record grooves it generates friction, which in turn generates heat. That combo will wear away the band-aid coating you put on with the dish soap in short order. Also, by using dish soap if you ever wanted to step up to a vacuum RCM with more correct fluids and such, it would be a defeating preposition, because even the best AIVS enzymatic fluids will have a very hard time removing the coating left behind, if at all! Dish soap is designed with certain hydrophobic surfactants that coat your dishes to make it harder for food to stick to them making cleaning them after use easier. Yes, that includes the ever popular Dawn! You think your are being forced to get an ultrasonic machine? You are not forced to get anything. In fact, for folks who have less than 200 records I don't even recommend a VPI or $500 Pro-Ject RCM or whatever. I would just go with a one-step Mo-Fi wash or something or a $90 Spin-Clean if one wants. When one gets to 250 plus records then it is time to consider a Record Dr. Pro-Ject or VPI or what have you. (If you want to avoid injury doing hand cleaning). As for an ultrasonic RCM, it is not for everybody and not required for cleaning records. It is next level, ultimate level and not a mandate. There is also such a thing as saving up for a machine or what have you. A $500 Pro-Ject RCM is far and away better than nothing. It can be a game changer.
Hey, if that works for you and you’re happy with the results, go for it, but I own a record store and clean hundreds of records a per week, and I can tell you, this system works better than anything else, period.
Even if this would be "The" solution, your explanation is clear, nice video but this process is way too laborous. And that white stuff/film is strange, that machine should wash away any goo in two/three rounds. Did you try to clean the record with an okinoki and after that use the Kirmuss...The 1st machine cleans quite well and the Kirmuss does the deepclean?
I had one of these. I honestly don't know what it did, except that the surfactant made me cough. I returned the unit to the retailer. I do noy believe this machine restores records, at least it didn't restore any of mine.
No thanks...I'll do one 10-minute cycle with the HG Nova and use the $$$ saved for more vinyl. POI...A 50-50 mix of distilled water and Simple Green works great on old vinyl that's really funky and dirty. A couple of sprays, a wipe with quality microfiber, and into the Nova it goes. YMMV
You've spent 20 (4 cleaning cycles) minutes plus 2 degass cycles. So you've spent close to 25 minutes on one record. And you can only run it for 35 minutes at a time. Completely useless process for getting through hundreds to thousands of records. Recommend no more than 10 records per tank. But it would take you all day and with the breaks needed after 35 minute use max, you'd likely have to continue the next day to get through 10 records. Which means a a new tank of water after just cleaning a few. What a dumb process. I've cleaned records with a VPI 16.5 and 3 step Audio Intelligent Vinyl solutions fluids and the records come out perfectly silent. No gunk on the stylus. Does the Krimuss clean deeper? Possibly but if my method, I can't hear it or see it, whats the difference?
It is a time consuming process and one I reserve for my most treasured recordings. Watch out for next week's episode where we'll take a deeper dive and compare the Kirmuss approach to traditional cleaning methods. Thanks for watching!
@@LetsCleanaRecord To be honest, I do have a Kirmuss tank that I bought used (almost new). But I don't use the Kirmuss cleaner or method. I fill the tank with distilled water and a capful of 99% Isopropyl. I prescrub all records with Tri-Art professional cleaner\surfactant. Sometimes I'll put a capful of that in the tank as well. Then I will rinse with distilled water and dry on the VPI 16.5. This method has been the best cleaning process I've ever had and the results are stunning. Still more labor than most would like but not as much as the Kirmuss method. If there is still anything left in those grooves its not audible or visible so in my opinion, doesn't matter.
The video is misleading. Cavitation creates heat. We restore 3 new records in 18 minutes. The supplement instructions were not followed. We thus do 3 records at a time. Average before the alarm goes off is abt 15 to 20 records before we change the water out. If one wants to surface clean, we can do a 2 minute cycle. As to the water, to our supplement, if the small red light flashes after about 15 records restored, due to heat created by cavitation, we can simply change the water out with cooler water, setting aside the water in the original containers. Top cap off of the bottle to water to cool. Then reuse. If we have clean records and with no fungus or resulting cloudy water, water is fine for 20 records. If someone is using the machine all day and to reduce the heating of the water so as to process more records, we take the cover off every 5 or so records and use the degas cycle for one cycle. This removes the air that we by using the have introduced in the water by inserting records. Air is the enemy of cavitation. To your point of water, would one take a bath in water used by others even if you used soap when you are washing? Irrespective, as a restored record repels water, as water and the record have the same electrical charge, records come out of the Kirmuss virtually dry. No need for air or vacuum drying. Other systems thus prove to everyone that they in fact coat records as they need vacuum, spin or air drying. At the DC Capital Audiofest we processed in one day 67 records, some with 198 minutes ( 5-2-2-2-2-5) cycles per the manual, others with only three 5 minute cycls, others 4 five minute cycles and a few with five 5 minute cycles. We know when we no longer need to apply the ionizing spray (not a cleaning solution), by noting the appearance first of a white material, then the fast dissipation. The colorant tells you when there is nothing left to remove. So your statement is contrary to what we deliver.
@guitarman5560 you are missing out on record groove restoration. The Kirmuss spray is used to change the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water to attract the effects of cavitation. No other process does this. Your process with our machine does not fully benefit from cavitation. If you now use our process correctly you will see what the ionizing agent has removed by way of the colorant appearing then disappearing. If you did somehow process the record using your method and it worked, you would not see any appearance of any white colorant. The VPI vacuum dries a film on the record. A Kirmuss restored record comes out virtually dry. This as a restored record has the same electrical charge as the distilled water. No need for vacuum or spin or blown air drying. From afar, we would be giving you about 2 dB gain over floor with abt 12 % increase in frequency response over your own process. Record ionization will strip out the film you just coated the record with using the vacuum drying, then we will remove the film deposited on the record by the outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in its sleeve, then finally the release agent that surfaces while the pvc biscuit is being pressed. All accounting the increase in frequency response and gain that you can hear as well as see on a soectrum analyzer. Check out our TH-cam channel for before and after record restoration.
@@kirmussaudio7578 My cleaning method makes my vinyl collection perfectly silent as far as pops and crackles. I find it has improved them every way. Maybe I could squeeze another 35 out with your method but incorporating 75% more labor and time. In other words, its just not worth the overpriced spray and time that it takes. You say I'd gain "2db gain over floor", I'm probably farther a head than that by upgrading my turntable to something better. I would far better off coughing up the money for a degritter.
This is beyond neurotic. The amount of unnecessary steps being used here to achieve the result could be omitted just by adding surfactant to the water and running the machine for 20 minutes. Another note is that the surfactant isn’t “pulling up” gunk from the record, you are agitating it and creating a film almost like what happens when you wash your hands and rub the soap between your hands and it creates suds. It feels like I’m being lied to by a snake oil salesman when you use that explanation. There was zero point in keeping the two goat hair brushes separate. You were using the surfactant spray on both. Not only that but this talk of mold release agents leaving a residue on the surface on a record and you are introducing a chemical to the final step of this “process” On the topic of mold release agents… I work in a pressing plant. I’ve pressed literally thousands of records over the years. The pvc comes in as pellets, they are then sent into a hopper that goes into a heating barrel before being pressed into a puck. We take that puck and the two labels and nothing else (unless there’s splatter or something) and put it into the press. It presses for like 15 seconds at a high heat generated by steam, then opens. The records are very hot coming off the press, still quite maliable and are easily removed. The reason they come off the press is because pvc doesn’t bond with the metals used to make the stamper. Now to quell any argument about a release agent being on the stamper itself, before each job starts, we clean each stamper thoroughly. Not only that, but a particularly large job will have us stopping to clean a few times throughout to keep the stampers clean. There is zero possibility that there could be any release agent involved. If you’ve ever seen a record get pressed, you’d understand what happens when you introduce liquid of any viscosity or amount to the process. Liquid on the stamper or on the puck will get baked into the record leaving a very ugly and noticeable mark or smudge that looks like someone smeared a booger across the surface. Release agents are absolutely not involved. This is a hill I will die on. Invite me to that zoom call and I’ll gladly dispel any rumour involving that. For that reason, all these steps are pointless. This system is a waste of time, energy and money.
I very much appreciate that you took the time to share your input. All I can say is that what I hear after the process doesn't sound like a waste of time. As to the great mold release compound debate, I just don't have the knowledge to know one way or the other, but I keep hearing passionate pleas on both sides of the argument. Either way, thanks for watching!
@@LetsCleanaRecord I’ll state again as fact… the second you introduce moisture or liquid into the press it creates problems. Drops of water on the stamper get baked into the final pressed record. Looks like a smudge that is permanently on the surface. Like someone smeared a booger across the surface. Same thing with sprays or mists, or really any liquid. Those presses are calibrated to handle two materials and two materials only. The PVC puck and the paper labels. Whoever said that the release agent is in the PVC is blindly spouting paranoid delusions. The PVC comes in pellets that are maybe 2mm in size. They are solid, hard pieces of plastic. There is nothing IN the pellets that act as a release agent. Not only that, but the pellets used in the making of vinyl records are also used in other applications outside of pressing it into records. The same company shipping the PVC is shipping it to many other non-vinyl related companies for their non pressing uses. There is no fathomable reason why any company would ADD a release agent. Is PVC a pure and natural compound? No. There are other chemicals involved in the making of the compound. Could that react with the heat and leave a residue?? Yes. Sometimes that does happen. It results in staining on the stampers. But again, we clean those stampers whenever that happens. And not just a water rinse, metal cleaner, then soap and water. There is no way even remotely arguable that there could be some release agent. To say you don’t have the knowledge yet talking about it in any fashion is irresponsible and spreading misinformation. I’m GIVING you the knowledge. Do better.
@@LetsCleanaRecord bring it on! Like I said before, this is a hill I’ll gladly die on. I’d love to know the amount of hours he’s spent sweating his butt off in front of a press. I’d love to know how many years he worked in the industry of manufacturing vinyl records. I want to know where he gets his practical knowledge from. It aggravates me to no end everytime I hear this crap about release agents. It’s not even so much that I take offense as a press op… I mean yea it kind of devalues the work that I do. The amount of times I’ve had to stop a press because a record is stuck to the stamper… but it’s more so that people invest literally thousands of dollars into cleaning products and machines that are designed to get rid of this fabled release agent. So as someone who knows unequivocally that there is zero release agent involved, I see the scam. And THAT is insulting to my intelligence and I watch other people buy into the scam and it pisses me off. So yes, I’d LOVE to debate the good “Doctor”
Very illustrative demonstration of the Kirmuss Ultrasonic machine, the accessories and the whole process.
Thank you for taking the time!
Chemistry and Physics aside, I've owned a Kirmuss Unit for almost a year. I bought mine at Axpona 2023 in Chicago. I've run close to 200 records through the machine and what I hear after cleaning, tells me that the cleaning process works. I've never been in a Pressing Plant, but after cleaning 20 or so new (Read; sealed/unopened) records, the material left in the water shows that something was removed from the surface. Older recordings definetly benefit from this machine. A pressing of Fat Matress' first release was horrible sounding when I brought it home from Goodwill and after a thorough cleaning it sounded like a different record.
It's not cheap, it takes time to do the process properly and it is noisy, but it works very well. Great review and some great discussion in the comments section.
One more thought: I leave the top unit on the machine, unplugged while I Degas the bath. and cover the slots with a towel to keep the noise down. My cat appreciates it....
great demo...yes the process does look time consuming as you mentioned, however that record did look perfect and brand new after the cleaning session. just looked immaculate from here. for certain lps in a collection the process is probably well worth the time
Restoration is not surface shining. And once done, the process does not have to be repeated.
A shiny record is not indicative of a great sounding record. In many cases we restore records, some sold as new, only to see surface marks and scuffs on the record after record restoration as they were cleaned and shined for sale"... in essence, coated. As the needle now rides "in the pocket", we do not pick up in most cases any noises.
To just surface clean like other processes, a 2 or 3 single cycle suffices.
Once restored one does not have to repeat the process with the 4 ir so in and out cycles. A 2 or 3 minute cycle when the owner of the record decides the record has accumulated more fingerprints etc..
The main purpose of the "surfactant" used is to change the charge of the record to attract the cavitation as you alluded to. It does also help with static of course. The "surfactant" (or as I like to call it "atomic charge changer" as well) has both a positive and negative charge itself. The properties are temperature sensitive as well. It is best used in ultrasonic cleaning and the like over other surfactants that have both a hydrophobic and hydrophilic charge or indeed only a hydrophobic charge as found in items such as dishwashing liquid. Ethylene Glycol is a water absorber basically, it doesn't leave behind a "forever" residue. Dish soap on the other hand is opposite. It's surfactant(s) are designed to leave behind a residue that repels items making your dishes easier to clean next time.
As for "mold release agent": I have also recently heard Dr. Kirmuss (I will reveal here that I know him well) state that there is plasticizer that is also removed and needing removal in the process. Most folks, including most audiophiles have a vision of products such as Pam being sprayed on the stampers, but that is myth. There is a release agent mixed into the pellet mixture along with plasticizers, etc. which is melted down to create the pucks for stamping. (Otherwise the record would stick to the mold until completely cooled or do so regardless of temperature. Pressing machines need to be able to press records quickly, so there is not time to let the record cool to the point where it releases on it's own, if that happens). Some of this "release agent AND plasticizer ends up coming to the surface of the record (which includes in the grooves). In and of itself, it is not a problem, but as we know, record pressing plants are not laboratory clean rooms like electronic chip manufactures. They are some of the dirtiest places around so what happens is the pressed record (still quite warm/hot) is set on a spindle device with non-stick paper between each record to air cool and all the contaminates around land on the record and in the grooves. The "release agent" and plasticizer that has come to the surface in the pressing process is like a cooking oil or some sticky oil and suspends the contaminates that have fallen in/on it. Think of new records that you get and put on the turntable straight away, you will hear all kinds of pops and clicks, etc. Even if one surface cleans the record beforehand and then plays it, will still hear pops and clicks and noise. Not as much as before perhaps, but still very much audible. That is from the contaminates embedded in the "release agent" and plasticizer that is still sitting on the surface. This can not be removed by any other type of cleaning other than ultrasonic and keep the record intact. One could use excellent enzyme based cleaner such as Audio Intelligence Vinyl Solutions and a vacuum RCM, but it would take a hundred cleanings and a lucky day to get it.
If you took your thumb nail and pressed it into the record, say on the outside edge or lead in, you would see an imprint! (I have done this in my studies). The imprint is from and in the plasticizer and "release agent" which is soft.
I like to also point out that plasticizer is one of the most important components of the mix, Were it not for that records would be pieces of plumbing and unable to hold grooves where the music data lives. They would also be very brittle. So we do NOT want to remove or leach out all the plasticizer, but we do want to get a thin micron layer that contains the contaminates off the surface without removing or leaching any more out. Some ultrasonic RCMS can remove too much plasticizer rendering your record into a piece of plumbing, which not only raises the noise floor, but one day the record can fall apart in your hand! Standard records are about 120 gram weight and dynaflex and the like is about 80 grams! This is far thinner than PVC plumbing. So with certain frequencies and temperature combinations one can leach most of if not all the plasticizer in a record with relative ease.
The good thing about the Kirmuss machine in part is the frequency of the transducers and the temperature control. I have heard many an audiophile say that the frequency of the transducers used in the Kirmuss machine make the bubbles too big to get into the grooves and be affective and that higher frequency transducers are needed so the bubbles are smaller to get into the grooves. That is not the case. When one understands how cavitation works, one sees the picture clearer. Bubble size corresponds with time. The smaller the bubble, the less time in the bath, but the "cleaning" function remains the same. The frequency of the transducers is low enough on the Kirmuss machine that it would take a record constantly running through the machine about 6 months to leach out enough of the plasticizer thus destroying the record. These machines that tout 100kHz or 120kHz transducers and temperatures above 93/94F running into 110F to 120F will not only warp the grooves in short order, but leach out most of, if not all the plasticizer as well in relatively short order! (The record is already ruined with the warped grooves).
Fascinating stuff, thanks! And thank you for watching.
Fantastic video! Saved me lots of time getting mine ready to go. High quality audio and video. Well done!
The demonstration is very thorough and detailed which is great. What I didn’t hear you say however is how effective the Kirmuss methodology is in terms of the record restoration? Specifically, did the process banish surface noise completely, improve sound etc., and in this respect did it do a better job than the KL Audio? I own a KL Audio unit and my interest in the Kirmuss has been piqued. Michael Fremer in an article he wrote for Analog Planet some time ago was glowing in his praise of the Kirmuss process as a restoration procedure. You did not comment on the efficacy of the ‘ritual’ in terms of restoring a vinyl record. I would like to hear your observations on that. I enjoyed the video nonetheless as an invaluable instruction on how to use the Kirmuss unit.
Look at this:
1. Restoration of a Frank Sinatra Record. Mexico City Nov 2023 KirmussAudio event.
Before restoration: Lots of noise. Crackles abound. Sound Muddled.
The record was processed before in a 120 KHz ultrasonic. Processed 5 times. Before in a vacuum based cleaning system, so I was told.
Video Before Kirmuss Processing:
th-cam.com/channels/q6s2TT2s7SgZu_7F1D37SQ.html
Video After Kirmuss Restoration: Increase in signal and frequency response, pops gone.
th-cam.com/video/_RZ50MIPtVA/w-d-xo.html
2. From our record restoration event in Mexico City in front of Billboard Magazine and with an invitation only meeting of Discos two weeks ago held at the Margules factory, very nice of him, a record that was brought in that was processed prior with a vacuum cleaning system saw these results:
Before Kirmuss;
th-cam.com/users/shorts-L2gIqQ3nok
After Kirmuss:
th-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
This looks like a great method for creating "needle-drop" transfers of records for which the master tapes are missing. I can picture someone finding some private-press garage rock 45 and giving it this treatment before ripping it for a compilation.
That surfactant really seems to be the key. You get a pretty good idea if the record needs another spin based on whether or not the white film is appearing.
For those interested in hearing the results of the Kirmuss restoration process:
1. Restoration of a Frank Sinatra Record. Mexico City Nov 2023 KirmussAudio event.
Before restoration: Lots of noise. Crackles abound. Sound Muddled.
The record was processed before in a 120 KHz ultrasonic. Processed 5 times. Before in a vacuum based cleaning system, so I was told.
Video Before Kirmuss Processing:
th-cam.com/channels/q6s2TT2s7SgZu_7F1D37SQ.html
Video After Kirmuss Restoration: Increase in signal and frequency response, pops gone.
th-cam.com/video/_RZ50MIPtVA/w-d-xo.html
2. From our record restoration event in Mexico City in front of Billboard Magazine and with an invitation only meeting of Discos two weeks ago held at the Margules factory, very nice of him, a record that was brought in that was processed prior with a vacuum cleaning system saw these results:
Before Kirmuss;
th-cam.com/users/shorts-L2gIqQ3nok
After Kirmuss:
th-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
Very effective demonstration videos, Charles. I wish everyone would do this type of A/B comparison, to have a visual eq, along with (what sounds like) the audio going straight into the video upload, as opposed to most comparison videos where a mic is trying to pick up sound from a stereo speaker. Assuming the statement of this being done in front of an audience is true, this is the best A/B I've seen on TH-cam, and I can easily hear & see the difference.
@jeffjeezy7170 thanks for the comment. Yes, at every show or event we ask folks to bring in a record from home or buy one at the record fair area at the shows we attend. New or vintage records are listened to both before and after processing.
Since the Seattle show last year we use a spectrum analyzer.
In the videos posted, we recorded with the Samsung Fold S3 camera the spectrum analyzer and where we used a set of Grado headphones next to the analyzer.
Volume control.of the headphone amp kept the same. No changes.
The results speak for themselves.
All done live, unscripted.
Id love to hear example recordings like this in higher quality and not recorded.externally via a microphone
@astahesta123 Great question, thanks!
Just checked our TH-cam channel. Seems due to copyright issues, the one we posted with high quality recorded first on tape then converted to digital as a audio video mix with the spectrum analyzer seems to have been removed by TH-cam on our site, so it would seem. Perhaps a video with in person commentary would pass.
You can stop by a dealer or see us at a show to have your personal record restored with before and after restoration audition. Confident in our results, we are the only folks to do this live at the audio shows, last one being Axpona.
While there is background noise of folks taling in the clips remaining on our site, the results of increase in signal and frequency response represented on the spectrum analyzer after record groove restoration are accurate. A testament to the effectiveness of the process.
To your request, when we are back from travels as we have another 6 events over 9 weeks, we will try to create a clip that would not infringe and hope the clips stay up.
Keep those records spinning!
Some clarifications:
1)To restore a record with the Kirmuss, not just surface shine which other systems do by leaving a film, we need to use several cycles. The spray changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water in the tank.
Restoration removes films from prior cleaning methods left by air, vacuum or spin drying. We then remove the film of the outgassing of the record while in its record's sleeve. Finally, the release agent which allowed the record to pop out of the stamper, where when cooling, sees dirt and dust around the cooling record be fused into the pressing oil, cause of those unwanted and nasty pops.
2) Cavitation creates heat. Evey 5 or so records, one needs to remove the cover assembly, disconnect it, and use one pulse/degas cycle of 1:36 to remove air that gets introduced into the water. This slows down the heating.
3) Correcting the statement made as to stop the machine every 35 minutes to allow the transducers and water to cool down (do this when the small red light flashes), you can empty the tank of the hot water, returning the water to the plastic gallon jugs used, and then pour in fresh cool distilled water, add the 2 shots of 70% IPA (used to kill fungus), do the prescribed two de-gas/pulse cycles of 1:36, and you are set to go. Leave the caps off of the gallon jugs of hot water to allow the water to cool down.
We do 40 plus records at a trade show in 8 hours.
4) Restoration offers 1.3 to 9 dB or more signal improvement over floor, with 8 to upwards of 28, sometimes seen 32, even 38% increase in frequency response. Many cleaning systems leave severe coatings on the record, which we remove.
5) A quick surface clean is a 2 minute cycle. Records will not come out dry as only the Kirmuss restoration system and the described process restores records. Per the Tribelectric table of charges, PVC and water have the same charge, that is proof of a record being restored.
6) Average time to restore records:
New records (or records seen with huge sheets of water after the first 5 minute cycle in the machine with ionizing spray applied, sees the use of four 2 minute cycles, followed by a 5 minute cycle.
Most records see three 5 minute cycles.
Determined by the rapid dissipation of the colorant when the ionizing agent is brushed into the record. Also whereas restored records come out virtually dry.
7) If one wants to play what the stamper actually pressed, only restoration and not record cleaning will allow your analog system set up n ow allow the needle pick up all the detail. That is why we guarantee with measurements what restoration does.
Once restored, one does not have to process the record as demonstrated. Just a 2 minute cycle to remove any fingerprint oils etc. as determined by the user.
8) The Upscale Audio Version can process three LP's at a time, plus a 45.
Good one, that record was pretty clean after 5 min. You could tell the water came right off it. Dirty disks the water pools and doesn’t come off quickly. It’s a good system. It will reveal how crappy most modern disks are. Mid 80s pressings are much better. Yes can run multiples at same time. Stagger by about 2 min. Note: klaudio is about 6 times the cost of the kirmuss. If you want a real clean…. Get the kirmuss. He says you can get 1-2db back. I have the upscale audio version too
1. Restoration of a Frank Sinatra Record. Mexico City Nov 2023 KirmussAudio event.
Before restoration: Lots of noise. Crackles abound. Sound Muddled.
The record was processed before in a 120 KHz ultrasonic. Processed 5 times. Before in a vacuum based cleaning system, so I was told.
Video Before Kirmuss Processing:
th-cam.com/channels/q6s2TT2s7SgZu_7F1D37SQ.html
Video After Kirmuss Restoration: Increase in signal and frequency response, pops gone.
th-cam.com/video/_RZ50MIPtVA/w-d-xo.html
2. From our record restoration event in Mexico City in front of Billboard Magazine and with an invitation only meeting of Discos two weeks ago held at the Margules factory, very nice of him, a record that was brought in that was processed prior with a vacuum cleaning system saw these results:
Before Kirmuss;
th-cam.com/users/shorts-L2gIqQ3nok
After Kirmuss:
th-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
So many questions totally unrelated to cleaning.
1. What speakers are those? They look incredible!!!
2. What's in the safe?
The speakers are Quintet 15s from Pure Audio Project. They're dipoles (no enclosure), which makes them easy to drive. The low/mid frequency woofers are driven by 2A3 amps at 3.5 watts and center mid/hi speaker (from Voxativ) is driven by a 7 watt 300b based amp. Just love 'em. What's in the safe is pretty much what's in every guy's safe...thanks for watching!
Very informative. Thank you!
I also have the Kirmuss record restorer and I find that some vinyl records come out dry while some after ten cycles still show water beads so I think it depends on the vinyl type, not all vinyl is the same. I also learned not to allow the surfactant on the dead wax, it isn't submerged in the water and sounds static when the stylus passes through it afterwards.
I recently realized the same thing regarding the dead wax. Working on avoiding that.
I use a similar selution, only I don't use alcohol, but vinegar! It gets writ off mold, grease, scale and has an anti-static working aswell! 😊
Thanks for the video. Question. How realistic is it, to clean multiple records at once? To go through the process I just watched you do, but with multiple records as to fill all slots in the machine, it seems like the cleaning agent could begin drying onto your first record by the time you're still swirling both sides of say the third record. I imagine you would want to get the cavitation going immediately after putting that solution on. Curious of your thoughts on that.
I did try it and with some practice, one can clean multiple records at once. The key is to space them a few minutes apart so as you're finishing applying surfactant on one record, another is coming to the end of its US cycle.
@LetsCleanaRecord I see. I should have phrased that better, but to put three records in the available slots at one time, then start the US process on all three at once, is likely a bit much to handle, if you're trying to restore. Great video, I was waiting on this one.
At the various live events and trade shows we in 9 hours and only processing 2 LP's at the same time sees us process 42, 48, 60 records depending whether we process new records at a fixed 18 minutes, or records using 3,4 or 5 five minute cycles. The appearance and dissipation of the colorant in the ionizing spray allows one to determine visually when we have removed everything from the record... films left over by air, spin or vacuum drying, the outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in its sleeve (like the film on your new car's windshield with that new car smell), then the release agent itself.
@kirmussaudio7578 thanks for the follow-up. Understood.
I’d be interested in you testing for any sonic improvement of a record previously cleaned by the Klaudio machine that was still a bit noisy that later went through the Kirmuss process.
Great idea! That is exactly the subject of our next episode, schedule for release tomorrow.
Great video... odd where where peers do not publish signal gain over floor or increase in frequency response after one uses a cleaning system or process. Hmmm.
If you had to pick, kirmuss or loricraft? I have a kirmuss and absolutely love the results. It the time it takes that is hard to swallow. Based on results, which would you recommend
Kirmuss. If we're talking JUST what gets records the cleanest, I would go with Kirmuss. And boy howdy does it take time!
I've owned one of these for about three years. It's an amazing cleaner and it is one of the best cleaners that I've ever owned. It's pricey, but it really works well. It's far better than products like the Spin Clean.
Using my KVARC cleaner, my records sound very much better.
To eliminate static, use a aerostat or a Milty.
wondering if one uses the same processes, surfacants and brushes from Kirmuss on a HumminGuru, that the results could be the same? seems the process is more important than the machine itself.
The Huminguru is not a cavitation machine. It is a sonic bubbler. Would not remove the film caused by outgassing of the record while in a sleeve or the pressing oil.
I'm a little confused about a specific part of the cleaning process. Surfactant/goat hair brush/milky white film. What I mean is I have watched some of your other videos regarding products and machines used to clean vinyl and this step is not addressed. What I am curious about, as an example, after using the 3 Mofi cleaning products that you used, what would happen if you then used the Kurmas solution? Would a milky white film appear? Does my question make sense?
It would. Standard cleaning processes most certainly help but will leave a residue behind. The whitish film is a colorant in the ionizing spray that allows you to determine if the cleaning process is complete or not. A fast rise and dissipation of the colorant indicates that there is nothing else for the ultrasonic to remove.
Great question! Thanks! Te spray is not a cleaning solution. It changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water to attract the effects of ultrasonic cavitation. Yes, the colorant as explained allows one to see what the ultrasonic pulled out. Rapid dissipation of the coolant indicates last cycle in the machine, as little is left for the ultrasonic to remove.
If i clean my records i do it once not 4 times if i had to do this with every record i would be pissed after that .
maybe the white residue is from the brush not actually on the record that is my thinking about that.
If you clean a record which has been cleaned w your Loricraft, is it better with the Kirmuss?
Testing that theory as we speak! So far, I find the Kirmuss process to do the best job, but one has to do it correctly (varies depending on the type and age of the dirt) and it is certainly time consuming. A fabulous machine and process the Kirmuss is. That said, I've had guys tell me they pull off dirt with a Loricraft after a US treatment, though I don't think it was the Kirmuss. More soon and thanks for watching.
My big question is, is it worth it? It’s a lot of time and effort.
I’m currently using an audio desk , I think it does a really good job but everything, although I am not sure it’s the last word in ultrasonic. Some people have mentioned that it’s not actually using ultrasonic technology but using bubbles, that seems ridiculous, but everyone has theories about everything around here.
Have you had any experience with audio desk?
@@CésarRubio-w1n I have not used the AD but several guys here have. I do think the Kirmuss process is worth the time for my favorite records where one can hear the difference (well recorded, nicely pressed, music with quiet passages, etc.)
Good review but I have to admit I have minimal patience with this method and with Dr. Kirmuss himself. Many of us have seen Professor Kirmus. His long and rather excruciating diatribes are some of the best antidotes for sleeplessness. In fact, it has been reported that the makers of Ambien are extremely worried and considering a law suit for infringing on their territory...
Funny...'cuz it's true
Why do my peers not publicize what they use as to chemicals and measure and publish the results after processing a record?
With no commentary on our TH-cam channel you can see how our process restores records processed prior using a vacuum system and a peer ultrasonic.
May I suggest you bring a record from home to either one of our resellers or to us at one of the many shows that we attend. This for an A -B pre and post processing test with signal analyzer and your ears in tow.
There has been no sharing of science as to the art of record cleaning. The presentations and publications seen globally cannot be refuted, just as the extensive studies by JR Boisclair of Wally Tools.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions which I personally welcome.
The fact of the matter remains whether you are a fan of my person or not is where we put in writing the gain in signal and frequency response from our record groove restoration process. The only manufacturer to do so.
@@kirmussaudio7578 The trouble with your method and the reluctance to adopt it is the tediousness of your procedure. I know you will reply that you can do so many records in a very short time. But judging by the comments on various websites, most users do not find this to be true. Many report that the restoration process just takes too long and is too complicated. I don’t question the fact that your restorative method works. It may offer the very best cleaning compared to any other method but what good is it if users are reluctant to adopt it? And, unequivocally this has been the case with a majority of users who express their opinions on websites. Ask a number of people which they would prefer- your method which involves scrubbing and washing or something like the Degritter where you put the record in the machine, come back in a few minutes and it’s done. Even the vacuum machines are faster. Like many others, I love the vinyl medium and would prefer to play clean, mostly noiseless records. The Degritter gets me there with a minimum of fuss and time. I understand your attempt and frustration to explain scientifically why your method is the best, most exhaustive cleaning method. But how many of us want or are interested in that much detail? Life is short. I’d rather be reading a book, watching a movie or playing music than scrubbing records.
I have some records that have calcium carbonate in the grooves that does not come off with deep cleaning and ultrasonic cleaning have you heard of using white vinegar mixed with distilled water soak and scrub that might help remove?thanks
I have not heard of using vinegar. Have you tried soaking in an enzymatic solution, such as the one offered by AIVS?
No I have not but will check into it thanks
Calcium carbonate is not soluble in water, any water based cleaning system will have no affect on it.
It must be dissolved in an acid. To make matters worse, once the water evaporates from the acid solution, the calcium carbonate will re-precipitate. For this reason you must use an acid that is stable in water, and not attack PVC.
Be very careful with what you read on the forums, advice is often freely given by people with absolutely zero understanding of chemistry who "have been doing it for years, and never had a problem with it." You can search for PVC compatibility chart, and vinyl compatibility chart to find lists of compatibility ratings for chemicals. Advice often runs towards people liking organic acids like acetic acid or lactic acid, all of which will attack vinyl.
I suggest a 5% solution of hydrochloric acid. This is a bit less acidic than stomach acid, so you can handle it safely enough. It won't burn your skin (will redden it like a mild sunburn), but you *will* feel it in your eyes. It will also be strong enough to bleach the label if you don't get it off fast enough. Muriatic acid is dilute hydrochloric acid (31%) with some metal chelating agent like iron. The Hydrochloric acid we buy is 37%, and the air smoke when you open the bottle, and the labels turn brown from the vapor that leaks past the cap.
To calculate your dilution, use the dilution formula: C1*V1 = C2*V2. So, you have 37% acid (C1), and you want 100ml (V2) of 5%(C2), you solve for V1 in V1*37 = 5*100 -> V1 = 5*100/37 = 13.5. you add 13.5ml to 85.5ml water, or adding 16oz of 37% to 2gal of water will yield a 4% solution. should be fine.
I suggest getting the 37% stuff so you don't have to worry about iron cations sticking to your record. You can use Pyrex measuring cups from your kitchen, and put them back with no worries. Once you rinse out the cup, it will be cleaner than when it came out of the factory. Neutralize it with common baking soda.
Use the Kirmuss machine. Should do the trick.
So…you spray this stuff on the record, spread it around until this gunk comes up…and then turn the record over and use the same brush that you used on the first side? You’re just spreading that crap around, and it probably came from the stuff you sprayed on the record in the first place.
Thanks for your comment. The idea is that the spray renders a consistent static charge across the record's surface, one that is opposite of the charge within the US tank. This aides the cavitation process. The gunk is a result of the interaction between the spray and vinyl. It's not stuff coming off the record, though it is an excellent visual cue as to whether or not you still have a film on the vinyl, which is common with records that have been previously cleaned. Stated differently, we're not spreading crap around with this step, we're addressing the static charge.
The gunk seen is the colorant in the ionizing agent used that allows one to see what the ultrasonic brought up in the prior cycle.
One should pad the goat hair brush between sides so as to see better what the ultrasonic removed.
The TH-cam videos on the KirmussAudio channel go through the steps.
Very well done, was thinking about a Degritter, but this is less $ and may be a better option as I don't mind cleaning records.
As far as the "mold release agents", I get records that have a visible white film on them, even RTI presses, I couldn't remove it until I started using Tergikleen and then Alcohol in distilled water, that removes whatever it is. So my two cents is - something is causing this, and release agents are most logical.
Less money, yes. But how many of your records need this sort of treatment. Unless you love cleaning records, do you really want to spend the time it takes when you could be doing something else… anything else? The vast majority of records do not need this treatment. Take my advice- buy the Degritter. Yes, it’s more expensive but it’s so much easier to use, requires so little time, and does an excellent job. Put the record in, press the button for the time you want, come back a few minutes later and it’s all done. Read the great reviews for the Degritter. Most of the reviews I’ve read of the Kirmuss say it does a good job but is very laborious. And, by the way, the Degritter uses much less water.
Although the Kirmuss gets good review from those who have the patience to use it, here’s a typical review comparing the Kirmuss with the Degritter from the Hoffman website:
DaleClark said: ↑
I’m sorry, the Kirmuss looks like a pain in the A&$. Heck, I don’t even like using my Pro-Ject RCM. Degritter for me once I have $$ freed up
It is a colossal pain in the a$$. It’s not just the cleaning process. It’s the set up. The clean up.
I can keep the Degritter upstairs and it’s unobtrusive. I go to play a record, drop it in the Degritter for 4-9 minutes depending on the cycle I choose, remove, and play. Simple. And records sound amazing right after they are cleaned.
The Kirmuss is huge, uses 2x the water, and you need a fresh batch with every cleaning. The Degritter is easy to change water, and you do it once a week (and can go longer).
@@ericlubow4354 Good points all! You are right about the fact most of my records really don't need that level as I buy mostly new (remastered, UHQR, One step etc).
And I'm pretty particular on used ones.
My current RCM works well, but always looking for a better solution.
Thanks for the input!
You again! Do not trust the troll sites out there. We guarantee in writing the 1.3 dB and 8% frequency response gain in nbew records, and where in records of vintage unknown 3 to 4 dB gain over floor and 28-38% increase in frequency response. You hear and also can see the difference if you have a spectrum analyzer. Video of two record restorations of records are on the Kirmuss TH-cam Channel recorded in front of the record owners and a live audience.
@@ericlubow4354
All records have first any films left over from prior cleaning processes, air, vacuum or spun dried, then the film left by the outgassing of the record in its record sleeve either a day old or 70 years old caught in the record sleeve, then the record pressing oil, release agent. New records especially have different mixes. In front of Michael Fremer and Daniel Jacques (of Focal/Plurison fame), we showed on two new records made in the last year, depending on the presser, at one extreme 6 dB gain and 28% increase in frequency range, the other, proud to say an Anne Bisson record pressed by RTI, her latest one, 1.4 dB gain over floor, and increase of 8% frequency range. @@pnichols6500
Oh my days i use a baby hair brush and fine tooth brush with dish washing liquid ..save u dollars i get excellent reesults with no bs and the record sounds absolutley quiet .so longs as u get deep in the groove u good to go ...cheap as chips dont believe the hype.
I hope you are kidding. In case you are not: The use of dish soap alone is harming your records sonically. It won't destroy them outright, but you won't get any lasting pleasant sound from them. It may sound good to you for a short while but because you are masking everything with the dish soap, eventually that noise floor will come back up and the pops and clicks and such will return, likely worse than before. The reason is that as the stylus rides in the record grooves it generates friction, which in turn generates heat. That combo will wear away the band-aid coating you put on with the dish soap in short order.
Also, by using dish soap if you ever wanted to step up to a vacuum RCM with more correct fluids and such, it would be a defeating preposition, because even the best AIVS enzymatic fluids will have a very hard time removing the coating left behind, if at all! Dish soap is designed with certain hydrophobic surfactants that coat your dishes to make it harder for food to stick to them making cleaning them after use easier. Yes, that includes the ever popular Dawn!
You think your are being forced to get an ultrasonic machine? You are not forced to get anything. In fact, for folks who have less than 200 records I don't even recommend a VPI or $500 Pro-Ject RCM or whatever. I would just go with a one-step Mo-Fi wash or something or a $90 Spin-Clean if one wants. When one gets to 250 plus records then it is time to consider a Record Dr. Pro-Ject or VPI or what have you. (If you want to avoid injury doing hand cleaning). As for an ultrasonic RCM, it is not for everybody and not required for cleaning records. It is next level, ultimate level and not a mandate. There is also such a thing as saving up for a machine or what have you. A $500 Pro-Ject RCM is far and away better than nothing. It can be a game changer.
Hey, if that works for you and you’re happy with the results, go for it, but I own a record store and clean hundreds of records a per week, and I can tell you, this system works better than anything else, period.
Even if this would be "The" solution, your explanation is clear, nice video but this process is way too laborous. And that white stuff/film is strange, that machine should wash away any
goo in two/three rounds. Did you try to clean the record with an okinoki and after that use the Kirmuss...The 1st machine cleans quite well and the Kirmuss does the deepclean?
I had one of these. I honestly don't know what it did, except that the surfactant made me cough. I returned the unit to the retailer. I do noy believe this machine restores records, at least it didn't restore any of mine.
Please delete my unintentially multiple comments. Having trouble deleting it myself. Thanks.
No thanks...I'll do one 10-minute cycle with the HG Nova and use the $$$ saved for more vinyl.
POI...A 50-50 mix of distilled water and Simple Green works great on old vinyl that's really funky and dirty. A couple of sprays, a wipe with quality microfiber, and into the Nova it goes. YMMV
You've spent 20 (4 cleaning cycles) minutes plus 2 degass cycles. So you've spent close to 25 minutes on one record. And you can only run it for 35 minutes at a time. Completely useless process for getting through hundreds to thousands of records. Recommend no more than 10 records per tank. But it would take you all day and with the breaks needed after 35 minute use max, you'd likely have to continue the next day to get through 10 records. Which means a a new tank of water after just cleaning a few. What a dumb process.
I've cleaned records with a VPI 16.5 and 3 step Audio Intelligent Vinyl solutions fluids and the records come out perfectly silent. No gunk on the stylus. Does the Krimuss clean deeper? Possibly but if my method, I can't hear it or see it, whats the difference?
It is a time consuming process and one I reserve for my most treasured recordings. Watch out for next week's episode where we'll take a deeper dive and compare the Kirmuss approach to traditional cleaning methods. Thanks for watching!
@@LetsCleanaRecord To be honest, I do have a Kirmuss tank that I bought used (almost new). But I don't use the Kirmuss cleaner or method. I fill the tank with distilled water and a capful of 99% Isopropyl. I prescrub all records with Tri-Art professional cleaner\surfactant. Sometimes I'll put a capful of that in the tank as well. Then I will rinse with distilled water and dry on the VPI 16.5. This method has been the best cleaning process I've ever had and the results are stunning. Still more labor than most would like but not as much as the Kirmuss method. If there is still anything left in those grooves its not audible or visible so in my opinion, doesn't matter.
The video is misleading. Cavitation creates heat. We restore 3 new records in 18 minutes. The supplement instructions were not followed. We thus do 3 records at a time. Average before the alarm goes off is abt 15 to 20 records before we change the water out. If one wants to surface clean, we can do a 2 minute cycle.
As to the water, to our supplement, if the small red light flashes after about 15 records restored, due to heat created by cavitation, we can simply change the water out with cooler water, setting aside the water in the original containers. Top cap off of the bottle to water to cool. Then reuse.
If we have clean records and with no fungus or resulting cloudy water, water is fine for 20 records.
If someone is using the machine all day and to reduce the heating of the water so as to process more records, we take the cover off every 5 or so records and use the degas cycle for one cycle. This removes the air that we by using the have introduced in the water by inserting records. Air is the enemy of cavitation.
To your point of water, would one take a bath in water used by others even if you used soap when you are washing?
Irrespective, as a restored record repels water, as water and the record have the same electrical charge, records come out of the Kirmuss virtually dry. No need for air or vacuum drying. Other systems thus prove to everyone that they in fact coat records as they need vacuum, spin or air drying.
At the DC Capital Audiofest we processed in one day 67 records, some with 198 minutes ( 5-2-2-2-2-5) cycles per the manual, others with only three 5 minute cycls, others 4 five minute cycles and a few with five 5 minute cycles. We know when we no longer need to apply the ionizing spray (not a cleaning solution), by noting the appearance first of a white material, then the fast dissipation. The colorant tells you when there is nothing left to remove. So your statement is contrary to what we deliver.
@guitarman5560 you are missing out on record groove restoration. The Kirmuss spray is used to change the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water to attract the effects of cavitation. No other process does this.
Your process with our machine does not fully benefit from cavitation.
If you now use our process correctly you will see what the ionizing agent has removed by way of the colorant appearing then disappearing.
If you did somehow process the record using your method and it worked, you would not see any appearance of any white colorant.
The VPI vacuum dries a film on the record.
A Kirmuss restored record comes out virtually dry.
This as a restored record has the same electrical charge as the distilled water. No need for vacuum or spin or blown air drying.
From afar, we would be giving you about 2 dB gain over floor with abt 12 % increase in frequency response over your own process.
Record ionization will strip out the film you just coated the record with using the vacuum drying, then we will remove the film deposited on the record by the outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in its sleeve, then finally the release agent that surfaces while the pvc biscuit is being pressed. All accounting the increase in frequency response and gain that you can hear as well as see on a soectrum analyzer. Check out our TH-cam channel for before and after record restoration.
@@kirmussaudio7578 My cleaning method makes my vinyl collection perfectly silent as far as pops and crackles. I find it has improved them every way. Maybe I could squeeze another 35 out with your method but incorporating 75% more labor and time. In other words, its just not worth the overpriced spray and time that it takes. You say I'd gain "2db gain over floor", I'm probably farther a head than that by upgrading my turntable to something better. I would far better off coughing up the money for a degritter.
This is beyond neurotic. The amount of unnecessary steps being used here to achieve the result could be omitted just by adding surfactant to the water and running the machine for 20 minutes. Another note is that the surfactant isn’t “pulling up” gunk from the record, you are agitating it and creating a film almost like what happens when you wash your hands and rub the soap between your hands and it creates suds. It feels like I’m being lied to by a snake oil salesman when you use that explanation. There was zero point in keeping the two goat hair brushes separate. You were using the surfactant spray on both. Not only that but this talk of mold release agents leaving a residue on the surface on a record and you are introducing a chemical to the final step of this “process”
On the topic of mold release agents… I work in a pressing plant. I’ve pressed literally thousands of records over the years. The pvc comes in as pellets, they are then sent into a hopper that goes into a heating barrel before being pressed into a puck. We take that puck and the two labels and nothing else (unless there’s splatter or something) and put it into the press. It presses for like 15 seconds at a high heat generated by steam, then opens. The records are very hot coming off the press, still quite maliable and are easily removed. The reason they come off the press is because pvc doesn’t bond with the metals used to make the stamper. Now to quell any argument about a release agent being on the stamper itself, before each job starts, we clean each stamper thoroughly. Not only that, but a particularly large job will have us stopping to clean a few times throughout to keep the stampers clean. There is zero possibility that there could be any release agent involved.
If you’ve ever seen a record get pressed, you’d understand what happens when you introduce liquid of any viscosity or amount to the process. Liquid on the stamper or on the puck will get baked into the record leaving a very ugly and noticeable mark or smudge that looks like someone smeared a booger across the surface. Release agents are absolutely not involved. This is a hill I will die on. Invite me to that zoom call and I’ll gladly dispel any rumour involving that.
For that reason, all these steps are pointless. This system is a waste of time, energy and money.
I very much appreciate that you took the time to share your input. All I can say is that what I hear after the process doesn't sound like a waste of time. As to the great mold release compound debate, I just don't have the knowledge to know one way or the other, but I keep hearing passionate pleas on both sides of the argument. Either way, thanks for watching!
@@LetsCleanaRecord I’ll state again as fact… the second you introduce moisture or liquid into the press it creates problems. Drops of water on the stamper get baked into the final pressed record. Looks like a smudge that is permanently on the surface. Like someone smeared a booger across the surface. Same thing with sprays or mists, or really any liquid. Those presses are calibrated to handle two materials and two materials only. The PVC puck and the paper labels. Whoever said that the release agent is in the PVC is blindly spouting paranoid delusions. The PVC comes in pellets that are maybe 2mm in size. They are solid, hard pieces of plastic. There is nothing IN the pellets that act as a release agent. Not only that, but the pellets used in the making of vinyl records are also used in other applications outside of pressing it into records. The same company shipping the PVC is shipping it to many other non-vinyl related companies for their non pressing uses. There is no fathomable reason why any company would ADD a release agent. Is PVC a pure and natural compound? No. There are other chemicals involved in the making of the compound. Could that react with the heat and leave a residue?? Yes. Sometimes that does happen. It results in staining on the stampers. But again, we clean those stampers whenever that happens. And not just a water rinse, metal cleaner, then soap and water. There is no way even remotely arguable that there could be some release agent. To say you don’t have the knowledge yet talking about it in any fashion is irresponsible and spreading misinformation. I’m GIVING you the knowledge. Do better.
@@BrandonPGeneral I'd love to see you debate Kirmuss on this topic!
@@LetsCleanaRecord bring it on! Like I said before, this is a hill I’ll gladly die on. I’d love to know the amount of hours he’s spent sweating his butt off in front of a press. I’d love to know how many years he worked in the industry of manufacturing vinyl records. I want to know where he gets his practical knowledge from. It aggravates me to no end everytime I hear this crap about release agents. It’s not even so much that I take offense as a press op… I mean yea it kind of devalues the work that I do. The amount of times I’ve had to stop a press because a record is stuck to the stamper… but it’s more so that people invest literally thousands of dollars into cleaning products and machines that are designed to get rid of this fabled release agent. So as someone who knows unequivocally that there is zero release agent involved, I see the scam. And THAT is insulting to my intelligence and I watch other people buy into the scam and it pisses me off.
So yes, I’d LOVE to debate the good “Doctor”
He didn't create the process. He is demonstrating/testing someone else's process.